This invention relates generally to the field of behavior modification and more particularly, but not by way of limitation, to an improved method and device for modifying the behavior of individuals, specifically to provide a flexible, option-filled, method for the individual to select which operational mode best suits his particular needs in modifying that behavior.
For clarity of description, dietary behavior and its modification, such as to achieve weight loss, will be described in detail, though it is to be understood that the novel modification process of the present invention is adaptable for dealing with any undesirable behavior patterns such as, but not be limited to, eating, smoking, consumption of alcohol, and addictive drug use.
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) recently published the results of a long-term study ("Increasing Prevalence of Overweight Among U.S. Adults", The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1960 to 1991, Kuczmarski, et. al., JAMA, Jul. 20, 1994--Vol. 272 No. 3, Pg. 205-211) documenting a dramatic 8% increase in the prevalence of overweight adults 20 years of age and older in the last decade. The most recent 1991 data from that study indicates that 33.4% of U.S. adults were estimated to be overweight. Based on 1990 Census data, about 60 million people fall into this category. This study noted an increase of an average of about 8 pounds per adult over the 1980's. These studies consider "overweight" as approximately 124% of the desirable weight for men and 120% of the desirable weight for women. There are many other persons who, though not overweight according to this criteria, are concerned about losing weight or maintaining current desired weight. Losing and maintaining a desired weight has been a major concern and challenge to a majority of people in this health-conscious society.
To this challenge, many commercial weight-loss regimens have appeared in the marketplace. Some of the more familiar include (1) eating plans which offer prepared meals, which are purchased from the plan provider, and are designed to limit the caloric intake of participants. These plans require strict adherence to the regimen; (2) drug-based weight loss products, which are intended to curb the appetite and typically include high doses of caffeine or other stimulants which may have major, possibly toxic or adverse, side effects; (3) diet supplements which, when taken, operate as a meal substitute and ostensibly provide needed nutrients while also curbing one's appetite; and (4) quick-fix fad type menus or crash diets which are designed to restrict an eater's intake for a specified period of time and offer quick weight loss as the result. The problems with these regimens are that they are often costly, restrictive, painful, conspicuous (particularly when in use), exploitative, difficult to use, or lack flexibility.
The fact that there are so many approaches to weight control is a testament to the general futility and temporary nature of these plans. The resulting weight loss is generally only temporary. In the absence of some significant and permanent change in behavior, which was what put the individual in his overweight condition in the first place, the individual will generally lapse into his prior familiar routine and re-gain the weight so painfully lost. Though some plans are successful for some people, no one plan has been found to yield success for all.
Behaviorists continue to study eating habits of people in an effort to determine how best to handle and treat the obese and overweight. What the studies have found is that heavy people not only eat too much, they eat too fast. As a result, they are not as quickly satiated as those who eat more slowly, in an evenly paced manner. To help the overweight lose weight, behaviorists believe that attenuating the eating speed of the overweight will lead to a chain of actions which ultimately will lead those overweight individuals to satiate more quickly than before and thereby consume less. Less food consumed will result in weight loss. For example, see Weight Control, The Behavioral Strategies, Michael D. Lebow, John Wiley & Sons: New York (1981), p. 132-139; "Eating Behavior in Obese and Normal Weight 11-Year-Old Children", International Journal of Obesity (1992), Vol. 16, p. 355-360, Barkeling, et. al.; "Relationship Between Eating Rates and Obesity", Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1975), Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 123-125, Gaul, et. al.). Generally, it has been found that overweight individuals, by eating faster, take more bites or mouthfuls than non-overweight individuals. This has lead to the popularization of the rubric "bite counting" with its underlying presumption that, if a person bites less, they will eat less. Bite counting, without a rhythm (pace) to the sequential bites, does little to alter the eating habits of fast eaters and nothing to satiate them during a meal. In fact, it can be counter-productive leading only to a final bite count realization after ingestion of a large meal and nothing more. Also, bite counting is quite difficult to maintain in a social setting, during conversation, and without some assistance to tally the bites.
Though the tests described in the articles mentioned above are not conclusive, they tend to lean favorably toward the conclusion that eating too fast can lead to delayed satiability which, in turn, leads to eating more for satiation. In other words, the simple truth to weight gain or loss is, the less one eats, the more weight one loses and the more one eats, the more weight one gains. There is an direct relationship between quantity eaten and weight gained or lost. Bite counting, without pace alteration, does little to alter one's lifelong eating behavior and, consequently, will not result in the desired weight control, be it loss or maintenance.
Some relevant prior art patents which have addressed weight control include U.S. Pat. No. 5,398,688 issued to Laniado for METHOD, SYSTEM, AND INSTRUMENT FOR MONITORING FOOD INTAKE, U.S. Pat. No. 5,233,520 issued to Kretsch for METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MEASUREMENT OF INTAKE OF FOODS, NUTRIENTS, AND OTHER FOOD COMPONENTS IN THE DIET, U.S. Pat. No. 4,652,241 issued to McCarty for PLANNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM FOR REGULATING FOOD CONSUMPTION, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,218,611 issued to Cannon for METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING EATING BEHAVIOR. Though well conceived, well-intended, and, in some cases, positive results have been achieved, none of these prior art methods and devices have been found to significantly alter one's eating behavior in such a manner as to permit the dieter virtually unlimited control of his daily dietary routine and still lose or maintain a desired weight.
The method described in the Laniado patent attempts to limit a dieter's daily food intake by clinically monitoring the dieter over a period of time, establishing and measuring a physiological variable to generate a relationship between that variable and that of the dieter's rate and/or amount of food ingested, calculating a maximum eating time to ingest a pre-determined amount of food, and providing a indicator, such as an alarm, to the dieter to stop eating when the eating time has lapsed. Though intended to limit food intake, the cause and effect of this method could easily be to force the dieter to eat faster rather than slower in order to finish before the alarm sounds. The Laniado patent does not address the overall issue of satiability and behavior modification as they relate to one another. Though this method scientifically determines a quantity and duration for ingestion, it does not address the critical components of eating habits, particularly the pacing of one's eating. This method also is not supported by literature on satiation, such as "The Role of the Gut in Regulating Food Intake in Man" Nicholas Read, Stephen French, and Karen Cunningham, Nutrition Reviews, Vol. 52 No. 1, January 1994, where it is shown that the subject will achieve ". . . satiety 35 minutes before any lipid was evident in circulation."
The method disclosed in the Kretsch patent provides an interactive computerized dietary measurement system which measures weight, nutrient value, and dietary component of all food items stored in the computer system data base. It is used to collect, process, and summarize all dietary information for the dieter so that the dieter may maintain a proper nutritional dietary regimen. Like the other prior art patents, this method fails to account for eating behaviors and their modifications. While it may be an excellent information source for a food's nutrient value, it will not alter one's method of eating food.
The system of the McCarty patent is a daily planner which includes a listing of a dieter's daily pre-determined intake and permits the dieter to manipulate any individual food group/item to any pre-selected meal time. The dieter can eat all the foods selected for that day in any sequence preferred. He must select the regimen, consult the regimen, and adhere to the pre-set regimen. This prior art patent merely directs a person to eat no more than is allowed by the plan and does nothing to alter eating behavior. These patents teach regimens that are particularly difficult to apply in restaurants and social situations with unusual foods.
The method and apparatus taught by the Cannon patent focuses on altering a dieter's eating behavior by having the dieter pre-select the number of bites or mouthfuls to be taken during a given meal, taking each bite as the apparatus is activated by the user to indicate that a bite is being taken, chewing each bite to a pre-set pre-determined cadence signal emitted by the apparatus, the chew signal, and taking the next bite when a completed-bite signal is generated after a pre-set number of chew signals have been generated. By this method, if the dieter has not finished chewing his bite when the bite signal is activated for the next bite, the dieter ostensibly has taken too large a bite portion and must reduce the next portion accordingly. The pre-set bite amount is established by the dieter after evaluating his prior eating habits, namely bite counts, per meal over a period of time such as three to seven days. After the average has been established for each meal, one bite count is subtracted when using the apparatus. As each bite is taken, the dieter must manually activate a bite counter by pressing a key on the apparatus which then visibly increments and displays the bite count while the key remains depressed. For as long as the key is depressed, the chew signal and bite signal remain deactivated. These signals begin anew after the key is released. Manual operation also provides a modicum of exercise behavior. When the counter displays the pre-set bite count, the dieter should stop eating.
The dieter is accorded 25 chews for each bite. Each chew is 0.20 seconds in duration with a 0.65 second non-chew period resulting in 0.85 seconds between chews. The duration of the chew can be up to 0.50 seconds with a 0.65 second non-chew period or 1.15 seconds between chews. Total time between bites, therefore, can range from 21.25 seconds to 37.50 seconds. The method is chew-oriented with no deviation for chew times (i.e., chew and non-chew period) other than that which is ascribed above. Intervals between bites is as indicated. There is no teaching to vary the chew pace, or the bite pace, any more than the deviation ascribed above, nor is there any means to effect such variation. There is no means associated with this apparatus which facilitates a pause between bites. Moreover, chew counting is more onerous than the previously described bite counting.
Most importantly, vesting control of the chew and bite signals in the dieter through manual operation while eating, depressing, and releasing the key undermines the entire process of attempting to change behavior. Sequential bites, the bite pace, will not be constant but will rely on the dexterity, speed, and, most importantly, the will of the dieter to activate and restart the chew/bite sequence. If the dieter does nothing when the bite signal activates or if the dieter acts to deactivate all signals, the process to change behavior is virtually aborted. Any benefits to be derived from use of the Cannon apparatus because of the dieter's unlimited control are negated.
Though suited for the intended purpose, this prior art patent lacks flexibility and automation, and is too rigid, regimented, and is too conspicuous. It directly teaches the dieter to be rigidly consistent (i.e.; to eat in the same place everyday; to use the same standard settings and utensils, always to use the same settings and utensils even for food normally eaten without utensils, and to eat without distraction or interruption). The apparatus is taught to be visible, to psychologically underscore for the user the importance for strict adherence to its signals, and to be manually operated. These features of visibility and manual operation enhance the significance and importance of the eating behavior and are alleged to facilitate its modification, but, in the process, deprive the invention of flexibility. It also does not possess any other features or options that an individual user may select which, in the user's opinion, are best suited to his needs for behavior modification.
In summary, this prior art patent cannot accommodate the lifestyles of the majority of people in today's fast-paced society; those with a need for an easy-to-use but flexible weight control system. It purports to control rather than modify behavior. Moreover, the key operation which abates all signals while depressed and continues the bite signal until depressed fails to provide that degree of automation necessary to overcome the dieter's temptations and to modify behavior. Manual operation, which is key to this apparatus, undermines its usefulness. A device without that degree of control, which is more automated, and which provides for greater flexibility will provide the greatest benefit to the user.
Though not related directly to dietary consumption, U.S. Pat. No. 4,853,854 issued to Behar describes a behavior modification device suited primarily to modifying addictive behavior, smoking in this case, and to assisting a user in withdrawal therefrom but which may be suited to modify other undesirable forms of behavior. The device contains a microprocessor which generates a personalized withdrawal program suited to the user for the user's addictive habit. The microprocessor is programmed in read-only memory with the specific control program for a particular addictive habit. When activated the device establishes a baseline phase for the modification process. Each time the user engages in a behavior sequence (such as smoking a cigarette), he informs the device which records the time of the behavior sequence occurrence. After an initial baseline phase of several days, a withdrawal regimen is personalized for the user. The device thereupon signals to the user when he may engage in that behavior sequence and its quantity or dosage.
The Behar apparatus is not multi-user oriented and focuses on when to engage in a behavior sequence and it dictates the quantity (i.e. how many cigarettes). It is not flexible, except that it may adjust a withdrawal regimen based on a user engaging in behavior sequences not signaled. It does not accord a variety of processes from which a user may default, select, or have automatically selected. Most importantly, it does not focus on the primary behavior modification facet, that of pacing the behavior actions which comprise the behavior sequence (i.e., the rate at which the user would "puff" the cigarette) as does the present invention.
What most people want is a way to easily integrate weight reduction and control in their lives with few changes, with significant flexibility to accommodate to their lifestyles, and as effortlessly as possible. They want an easy-to-use behavior modification system. They also want the flexibility to go out for dinner with others, to eat from the same menu, to eat the same foods, all the while eating less in the process. Above all, they would like to avoid the use of drugs in their selected weight control regimen. They commonly don't want to publicly draw attention to their dietary efforts. They generally don't want, or find it difficult, to exercise more; if they exercise at all. Given these realities, the best approach for weight control must focus on reduction in the amount of food to be consumed as effortlessly, flexibly, and inconspicuously as possible.
What the public desires and which the prior art patents and publications have failed to provide is to enable a user to control the quantity or intake of food without invoking the strict discipline of a fad diet, supplements or substitutes, exotic foods, or an expensive eating plan, and for such quantity to be controlled while permitting an individual to eat normally, that is, the normal menu items, anywhere, at any time. What also is needed if for such quantity of food intake to be controlled, unobtrusively and as inconspicuously as possible, and for such quantity of food intake to be controlled while further according the individual a high degree of flexibility in his daily dietary pursuits. The method and exemplary apparatus of the present invention satisfies these long-felt and long recognized needs of the public